Why people like Brian are really atheists
Offline THE DEATH OF DARWIN'S DAUGHTER AND THE "PROBLEM" OF EVIL
People like Brian are atheists because of an emotional reaction. In Brian's case it was the sad death of his dad while he was only 13.
All atheists become absurd atheists becaus of some emotional reaction. Even Darwin had an emotional reaction. It was over the death of his daughter
The PBS television serier Evolution, episode 1, dramatized a turning point in the spiritual life of Charles Darwin. This was caused by the sickness and death of his beloved daughter Annie. Although the series did not spell it out, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, makes it clear that this tragedy destroyed the truth of Christianity in Darwin's mind. "How could there be a God if He allowed this to happen. Instead, Darwin decided that Annie was an unfortunate victim of the laws of nature, that is, she lost the struggle for existence.
Annie's death raised, for Darwin, serious questions about God's goodness. but the prevailing view of his day (that the earth was old and had long been filled with death and violence - Lyel), provided no adequate answers.
Alas, the prevailing church view was a "long age" (progressive creationism) of the earth, which placed fossils millions of years before Adam. This view entails that death and suffering were around for millions of years before Adam, and yet God called His acts of creation, very good. Such a view of God evidently didn't appeal to Darwin.
However, a consistent Biblical view, that death is an intruder, provides a coherent solution. But this is impossible unless the fossil record was formed after Adam's sin, which rules out billions of years.
So you see, the issue here is where we place the fossils via a presuppositional view point. Where we begin is where we end.
The 1988 World Book Encyclopedia says that "scientists date the rocks by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks. Things like this are common via the "scientific" contradiction of their admitted philosophical ignorance.
So the real reason why atheists are atheists, and believe absurd presuppositions, is because of emotional reactions. Whatever your reaction is, I ask that you look at it more closely in light of reason, in light of truth.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
Hey guys, I just got a telepathic message from god and he said he is real and wants me to go sacrifice someone to prove my loyalty! Aren't you all excited for me? lol
btw what's telepathy, this is like 2000 years ago and I have no fuckin clue.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
It always baffled me why these 'flat earthers' could not imagine (model) in their minds how 'natural selection' works.
It's because they do not understand that it is the events, sequences, patterns, bonding, mutations, transformations and permutations are not unlimited as in the logical fallacy of the 'infinite number of monkeys banging away at typewriters' being incapable of producing the 'codes' found naturally.
The way forces and matter 'coalesce' 'combine' 'crystalize' and 'bond', and 'structure' by the universal forces, and attributes of particles, can not be 'emulated' by monkeys at a typewriter, because the monkeys are not being 'bound' and 'constrained'.
It really is fucking daft
to not even be able to grasp the fringes of how the universal constants affect particles and chemistry.
REALLY FUCKING STUPID
Get an education, and grow a fucking brain already.
This stuff isn't 'mystical' at all. It is simple and basic in concept, and there's little excuse to be so ignorant an unaware of how the universe you live in works at the fundamental levels, of science.
If you think 'natural selection' is just a theory, you are just plain stupid.
It is the ONLY way things can occur 'naturally', as they DO.
It IS nature.
For those who are not terminally dysfunctional, here's 1 of a 5 part series that was done over 20 years ago, by Dawkins, called "The Blind Watchmaker" that was just 1 of many films where he scientifically proves that it is not merely an idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sUQIpFajsg&feature=related
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Yep, red, it is definitely one of those ideas that is so f**king obvious, in hindsight, that it is really up to the 'denialists' to explain what would prevent it from working.
Just like 'macro' vs 'micro' evolution - where is the mechanism that would stop 'micro'-evolution from simply continuing indefinitely into as big a change as you like?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I just thought of the one of the easiest ways to see the 'logical fallacy' of the 'infinite number of monkeys', or the 'Blind Watchmaker' fallacies.
The 'monkey(s)', and the 'blind watchermaker' hands are not limited, or governed.
Their hands do not have to 'color between the lines'.
Their hands do not have to conform.
Their hands do not have to abide by universal laws.
They are unlimited.
Out of control.
Unconstrained, uncontrolled, inconsistent, variable, uninhibited, unimpeded.
Pure randomness and pure chaos.
-----------------------
Particles and energy are governed by STRICT universal laws of forces and attractions.
The 'monkey' and 'blind watchmaker' strawmen are quite possibly the most retarded
attempts in human history at intellectualizing about how matter and energy in the universe HAVE necessarily crystalized as they HAVE necessarily only been able to do 1 possible way since the Singularity occurred. 
The 'monkey' and 'blind watchmaker' are not playing with particles and energy, in those fucking equivocations...
The 'chances' that either the 'monkey', or the 'blind watchmaker' could keep Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas from combining to form H2O if a spark were to ignite the two, with their hands, is Z E R O.
The 'chances' that either the 'monkey', or the 'blind watchmaker' could disassemble H2O into pure Hydrogen gas and pure Oxygen gas, with their hands, is Z E R O.
Z E R O
The odds that 'nature' could do either of those 2 difficult things WITHOUT an Intelligent Mind?????? 1 in 1.
This is quite possibly the 2nd most retarded attempt at 'logic' I've ever fucking heard.
They SEE 'evolution' (deviation) on a microscale?
But NOT on a macro scale?
Do they even comprehend how 'microscale' their 'view' is relative to the earth's??
If they were saddled to a light particle, just how would 'macro' their 'view' be of 'evolution' (deviation) as they 'travelled' through the universe??
These people are certifiable retards.
Every single last one of them, if they cannot comprehend these basics
Like David Lee Roth used to say: "It ain't rocket surgery!"
** Note to admin: I need a smiley with a bigger hammer...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hello,
William Paley is the guys who came up with the watch example. I have the first edition. Anyways, it is the teleogical argument from Aquinas. It has been shown countless times that it is absurd and full of logical fallacies. This is why I never use this argument, it is false.
Also, Paley was into "natural theology," which is a heretical notion. Not an essentially heretical notion, but non Christian nevertheless.
All of Aquinas' arguments are absurd, and wrong. Including Anselm's ontological argument. Some (most) who misunderstand my argument have accused me of being of the same line as Anselm. We are both deductive, but that doesn't mean we have the same argument. that is absurd.
Second, to ASSUME ASSUME ASSUME that macro evolution could have carried over from micro evolution is an absolute assumption via a leap. Thus you are of the definition of the leap of faith.
It's like saying, okay, micro evolution here is ABC, oh, so macro evolution is true, via XYZ. You forgot D-W. (LOL), very funny.
Thus your argument in invalid. Remember, for an argument to be sound, the premises and the argument must both be structured and proposed correctly.
Also, regarding my OP, I will repeat it for the 3rd time, since you are like many cultist I meet, they must hear it 1000 times before they get it.
Two scientists approach a piece of evidence. One scientists, a secular atheist, approaches it with presuppositions regarding atheism. Thus his data will be effected by his presupposition. A Christian approaches the exact same piece of evidence, does everything the secular scientists does (which is wrong), but they come out with 2 complete different conclusions. This due to presuppositions.
I have a very old book, from the 1860s, regarding chemistry as evidence for God (I disagree with his argument, but his data analysis is an ad hominem to the Darwinians of his time).
So the question is in relation to knowing, how do we know which presuppositions is right BEFORE we examine the evidence.
In your case, you don't. You all admit (well, the educated ones) that there are no absolute truths. All is probable. That is part of your presupposition. Which begs the question of the ratio of error for each evidence examined, but that is NEVER NEVER NEVER done. So the guess, has now turned into a gut instinct.
This is why Darwin failed, this is why atheism has failed, and this is why your worldview is absurd.
Hey Bob, have you been a mod/admin before I came on here? I don't remember that.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Then you should debate Mr_Metaphysics on here.
He claims victories, left, right, and center, using the OA, the KCA, and TAG as underpinnings in his arguments.
I agree with you, however that all these moronic arguments are completely absurd, and easily debunked.
You feel it is merely an assumption, and not a fact?
Prove it.
Evolution of the species predicts we would see 'progression' over time, and 'deviation' from the origins.
In radical deviations and mutations, it could only occur exceptionally rarely, and could die off and never live more than 1 generation. Or the radical deviation and mutation could spread across many generations, while developing to a level where it could not breed with the 'base' species it deviated from.
Fortunately, we have the fossil record, which all provide enormous evidence, and genetic data in support of the theory, and none to falsify it.
I'm not 'arguing' evolution.
I'm explaining how it works, and how the various strawmen used to try and debunk how nature works.
Nothing I state about 'evolution' (of either the species, or the universe) is incompatible with nature, so you have ZERO grounds to claim problems with compatibility with reality.
There are universal behaviours that we quantify, and call universal laws, because they behave in 100% predictable ways, with absolute consistency.
The term we use for those is 'universal laws'.
Who said such a thing?
Stating that all is probable, is highly incompatible with reality. That is a huge presupposition.
'All is possible' is still a presupposition, that is highly incompatible with reality. That would lead to a very unpredictable universe, without many (if any at all) universal laws.
'Anything (as in 'any one thing') is possible', is being neutral, and open minded.
Fuck. you just don't know any other way to function, than to 'project' your paranoia of how other people think and feel, do you?
You can't even make get the 'distinctions' between different states of mind, correct.
You're allegation would have some bite, if you falsified evolution by natural selection.
Can you falsify it?
If 'evolution of the species by natural selection' is false, provide the link to your published peer reviewed scientific white paper, that has overturned modern science, and provide the link your acceptance of your Nobel Prize.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
We have small changes from one generation to the next. FACT.
Anti-evolutions are the ones proposing something that has never been detected, that something will stop those changes from happening if it would mean crossing some arbitrary point.
The fossil record and genetics are evidence against any such limit.
It would require some kind of 'reference genome' that was eternally preserved, unlike the working one, to allow some mechanism that would stop any more than a certain number of differences from the reference to occur. Where is the reference?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
We have radical mutations and transformations within 1 lifetime that we can observe.
2 of the best known examples are the flounder and the butterfly.
The flounder starts off as a normal fish, swimming vertically, with 1 eye on each side of it's brain, and it then swtches to swimming as a flat fish, and one eye migrating over close to the other one, so that both are on top, much like a ray.
The butterfly is another radical transformation, from it's gravity bound wormlike caterpillar state, to it's large winged flying insect state.
Put a caterpillar next to a butterfly, and you cannot 'see' the link between the 2. But the 'evolution' from one form, to another, is very real.
With hardcore theist scientistists like Bill O'Reilly, and co scientist idiot savants like Kirk Cameron working rigorously on biology science, claiming because there's no 'caterfly', one could conclude that 'evolution' of the caterpillar to the butterfly is 'bunk'.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Only arguments that lead to Jesus are sound.
Only premises that lead to Jesus are sound.
Only arguments that are structured to lead to Jesus are sound.
Only arguments that lead to Jesus are proposed correctly.
BWAAAT POLLY WANNA CRACKER.
How does it feel to be property Fido?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
How did we even get to "macro evolution"? I mean, isnt this really about Brian ?
:
So what emotional reaction made you believe in the magical carp.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
He freaked at the thought of a turban as a staple of his wardrobe...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris